Judgment M.M.Aggarwal, J. 1. This is an appeal against judgment dated 15.9.1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby accused-appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 304B, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000, in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo RI for one year each. 2. Prosecution case against the accused-appellants is that marriage of Sukhwinder-Kaur deceased had taken place with Surjit Singh on 25.2.1996, At the time of marriage, Bawa Singh (complainant), father of the deceased had given sufficient dowry but father in-law Sohan Singh, mother-in-law Naib Kaur and Surjit Singh, husband were not satisfied with the dowry. They started maltreating Sukhwinder Kaur and started beating her. Demand of scooter was made. Then on 5.6.1998, Sukhwinder Kaur died in the house of the accused. After hearing this, complainant went to the house of the accused. He lodged a report. Case was registered and investigated and then accused-appellants were challaned and sent for trial. After trial case against the accused-appellants was found to be proved, they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. Counsel for the appellants had argued that police had recorded DDR on 2.6.1998 at the instance of Bawa Singh, father of the deceased. There had been no allegations of demand of dowry. Then on 19.6.1998 after ten days, an application was made in which demand of scooter had been mentioned. This was an improvement made after ten days. It was argued that still there had been no specific allegation. There were general allegations against all the accused. It was argued that husband of the deceased namely Surjit Singh was residing separately from his parents. This fact was proved by DW1 Mohinder Singh. Surjit Singh was in fact working in a Swaraj factory as daily wager and he was also having a scooter. It was argued that DW2 Mohinder Singh had acted as Bichola and he had made statement that he was never informed about any harassment or demand. Counsel for the appellants had relied on two judgments of this Court reported in Jasbir and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) (sic) 529 and Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 521. 4. Counsel for the appellants had relied on two judgments of this Court reported in Jasbir and Anr. v. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) (sic) 529 and Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 521. 4. On behalf of the State, it was argued that when daughter of man dies within just two years of her marriage then father while making report immediately after the death may not be in a position to narrate the fact of demands, etc. However, in statement Ex. DB from which DDR was recorded, it was mentioned that husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had killed Sukhwinder Kaur. However, police had not registered the case immediately and thereafter a complaint was made by Bawa Singh Ex. PC giving all the details of demands, etc. then FIR was recorded on 23.6.1998. It was also argued that the case of the prosecution was duly proved by statement of Bawa Singh, who appeared as PW2 and PW3 Kulwant Singh, who was maternal uncle. 5. From the statements of PW2 and PW3, it was quite clear that there was demand of scooter and Sukhwinder Kaur had been telling her father Bawa Singh about this demand. Even PW3 Kulwant Singh was told this fact. However, the fact further remains that parents-in-law were residing separately and they would not require scooter and would not raise such demand. In a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported in KansRaj v. State of Punjab and Ors. II (2000) CCR 156 (SC) : 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695, it had been observed that for fault of the husband, the in-laws or other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. Any overt acts attributed to the persons other than the husband were required to be proved beyond doubt and by mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. 6. In the present case, initially Bawa Singh, father of the deceased did not say that there was any demand of scooter. He had otherwise suspected that in-laws might have killed Sukhwinder Kaur, The allegation of demand of scooter was made after ten days of the death in a complaint made to the SSP by Bawa Singh. The parents of the husband would not have been benefited from that scooter when they were living separately. 7. He had otherwise suspected that in-laws might have killed Sukhwinder Kaur, The allegation of demand of scooter was made after ten days of the death in a complaint made to the SSP by Bawa Singh. The parents of the husband would not have been benefited from that scooter when they were living separately. 7. Under these circumstances, prosecution case against Sohan Singh, father-in-law and Naib Kaur, mother-in-law is not proved. Their appeal is accepted and they are acquitted of the charge. 8. Death of Sukhwinder Kaur had been due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. It was unnatural death within seven years of marriage. It was connected with the demand of scooter and was dowry death. I hold that case of prosecution against Surjit Singh appellant was duly proved for the offence under Section 304B, IPC. His appeal, as far as conviction is concerned, is dismissed. However, taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence of imprisonment of Surjit Singh appellant is reduced from ten years to seven years whereas sentence of fine is maintained.